Advertisement

A wager on the future: a practicable response to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and the stubborn fact of process

  • Marsha RosengartenEmail author
  • Dean Murphy
Original Article

Abstract

In this article we focus on public health’s wager on the social implications of a daily antiretroviral pill to prevent HIV, referred to as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis). The wager is shown to rely on modes of inquiry overly tied to what is known of the present in order to predict the future. Although such inquiry is not unusual when social research is called upon to assist health policy, predictive methodologies are unable to appreciate the dynamic and thus indeterminate nature of process. We ask: what mode of inquiry might practicably appreciate that what happens in the present will have a bearing on the future, without foreclosing on unknown possibles? Drawing on speculative and pragmatic philosophy, we reflect on our own qualitative research on PrEP to suggest that conventional methodological approaches can contribute to the future without seeking to determine what it will become.

Keywords

Speculative and pragmatic research HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) Gay men 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the VicPrEP study participants and the study’s Principal Investigator, Associate Professor Edwina Wright, who supported us in undertaking the qualitative arm of the study. Thanks also to John de Wit and Martin Holt. VicPrEP was funded by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services and the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne. Study drug was donated by Gilead Sciences. Thanks also to two anonymous peer reviewers who provided comments on an earlier version of this article.

References

  1. Auerbach, J.D., and T.A. Hoppe. 2015. Beyond “Getting Drugs into Bodies”: Social Science Perspectives on Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV. Journal of the International AIDS Society 18 (Suppl 3): 19983.  https://doi.org/10.7448/ias.18.4.19983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berridge, V. 1996. AIDS in the UK: The Making of Policy, 1981–1994: The Making of Policy, 1981–94. Oxford: OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Blumenthal, J., and R. Haubrich. 2014. Risk Compensation in PrEP: An Old Debate Emerges Yet Again. The Virtual Mentor 16 (11): 909–915.Google Scholar
  4. Cáceres, C.F., K.R. O’Reilly, K.H. Mayer, and R. Baggaley. 2015. PrEP Implementation: Moving from Trials to Policy and Practice. Journal of the International AIDS Society 18 (Suppl 3): 20222.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, M.S., Y.Q. Chen, M. McCauley, T. Gamble, M.C. Hosseinipour, N. Kumarasamy, et al. 2011. Prevention of HIV-1 Infection with Early Antiretroviral Therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 365 (6): 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coleman, R., and R. Tutton. 2017. Introduction to Special Issue of Sociological Review on ‘Futures in Question: Theories, Methods, Practices’. The Sociological Review 65 (3): 440–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connell, R.W., J. Crawford, G.W. Dowsett, S. Kippax, V. Sinnott, P. Rodden, et al. 1990. Danger and Context: Unsafe Anal Sexual Practice among Homosexual and Bisexual Men in the AIDS Crisis. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 26 (2): 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, M.D.M. 1996. Putting It All into Practice: Forging Links Between HIV Social Research and AIDS Education. National AIDS Bulletin 10 (1): 34–37.Google Scholar
  9. Despret, V. 2008. The Becomings of Subjectivity in Animal Worlds. Subjectivity 23 (1): 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, S. 1998. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge, New, Ed ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Escoffier, J. 1998. The Invention of Safer Sex: Vernacular Knowledge, Gay Politics and HIV Prevention. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 43: 1–30.Google Scholar
  12. Flowers, P., P. Sherran, N. Beail, and J.A. Smith. 1997. The Role of Psychosocial Factors in HIV Risk-Reduction Among Gay and Bisexualmen: A Quantitative Review. Psychology & Health 12 (2): 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankis, J., I. Young, P. Flowers, and L. McDaid. 2016. Who Will Use Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) and Why?: Understanding PrEP Awareness and Acceptability Amongst Men Who Have Sex with Men in the UK—A Mixed Methods Study. PLoS ONE 11 (4): e0151385.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franks, J., Y. Hirsch-Moverman, A.S. Loquere, K.R. Amico, R.M. Grant, B.J. Dye, et al. 2018. Sex, PrEP, and Stigma: Experiences with HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Among New York City MSM Participating in the HPTN 067/ADAPT Study. AIDS and Behavior 22 (4): 1139–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fraser, M. 2006. Event. Theory, Culture & Society 23: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant, R.M., P.L. Anderson, V. McMahan, A. Liu, K.R. Amico, M. Mehrotra, et al. 2014. Uptake of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, Sexual Practices, and HIV Incidence in Men and Transgender Women Who Have Sex with Men: A Cohort Study. Lancet Infectious Disease 14: 820–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greco, M. 2009. Thinking Beyond Polemics: Approaching the Health Society Through Foucault. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34: 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greco, M. 2017. Pragmatics of Explanation: Creative Accountability in the Care of ‘Medically Unexplained Symptoms’. The Sociological Review 65: 110–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hickson, F.C.I., P.M. Davies, A.J. Hunt, P. Weatherburn, T.J. McManus, and A.P.M. Coxon. 1992. Maintenance of Open Gay Relationships: Some Strategies for Protection Against HIV. AIDS Care 4 (4): 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holt, M. 2015. Configuring the Users of New HIV-Prevention Technologies: The Case of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis. Culture, Health & Sexuality 17 (4): 428–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holt, M., and D. Murphy. 2017. Prevention Optimism Related to HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis: Shifting the Focus from Individual to Community-Level Risk Compensation. American Journal of Public Health 107 (10): 1568–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holt, M., D.A. Murphy, D. Callander, J. Ellard, M. Rosengarten, S.C. Kippax, and J.B.F. de Wit. 2012. Willingness to Use HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis and the Likelihood of Decreased Condom Use are Both Associated with Unprotected Anal Intercourse and the Perceived Likelihood of Becoming HIV Positive Among Australian Gay and Bisexual Men. Sexually Transmitted Infections 88 (4): 258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. James, W. 1907/1995. Pragmatism. Toronto and London: Dover Thrift Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Khosropour, C.M., J.C. Dombrowski, F. Swanson, R.P. Kerani, D.A. Katz, L.A. Barbee, et al. 2016. Trends in Serosorting and the Association with HIV/STI Risk Over Time Among Men Who Have Sex with Men. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 72 (2): 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kippax, S. 2017. A Journey to HIV Prevention Research: From Social Psychology to Social Health via Multidisciplinarity. Journal of Health Psychology 5: 4.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317707529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kippax, S., J. Crawford, M. Davis, P. Rodden, and G. Dowsett. 1993. Sustaining Safe Sex: A Longitudinal Study of a Sample of Homosexual Men. AIDS 7 (2): 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kippax, S., J. Crawford, G.W. Dowsett, G. Bond, V. Sinnott, D. Baxter, et al. 1990. Gay Men’s Knowledge of HIV Transmission and ‘Safe’ Sex: A Question of Accuracy. Australian Journal of Social Issues 25 (3): 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kippax, S., and K. Race. 2003. Sustaining Safe Practice: Twenty Years on. Social Science and Medicine 57 (1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kippax, S., and N. Stephenson. 2012. Beyond the Distinction Between Biomedical and Social Dimensions of HIV Prevention Through the Lens of a Social Public Health. American Journal of Public Health 102 (5): 789–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kippax, S., N. Stephenson, R.G. Parker, and P. Aggleton. 2013. Between Individual Agency and Structure in HIV Prevention: Understanding the Middle Ground of Social Practice. American Journal of Public Health 103 (8): 1367–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koester, K.A., A. Liu, C. Eden, K.R. Amico, V. McMahan, P. Goicochea, et al. 2015. Acceptability of drug detection monitoring among participants in an open-label pre-exposure prophylaxis study. AIDS Care 27 (10): 1199–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lal, L., J. Audsley, D. Murphy, C. Fairley, M. Stoove, N. Roth, et al. 2017. Medication Adherence, Condom Use and Sexually Transmitted Infections in Australian PrEP Users: Interim Results from the Victorian PrEP Demonstration Project. AIDS 31 (12): 1709–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lury, C., and N. Wakeford (eds.). 2012. Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Marres, N., M. Guggenheim, and A. Wilkie (eds.). 2018. Inventing the Social. Manchester: Mattering Press.Google Scholar
  35. McCoy, L. 2005. HIV-Positive Patients and the Doctor–Patient Relationship: Perspectives from the Margins. Qualitative Health Research 15 (6): 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McInnes, D., and D. Murphy. 2011. Sex Education. Sexuality, Society and Learning 11 (1): 61–67.Google Scholar
  37. Michael, M. 2017. Enacting Big Futures, Little Futures: Toward an Ecology of Futures. The Sociological Review 65 (3): 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicholls, E.J. and Rosengarten, M. 2019. Witness Seminar: Antiretroviral Drugs Up to and Including the Proposition of TasP and PrEP. Disentangling European HIV/AIDS Policies: Activism, Citizenship and Health (EUROPACH). http://www.csisponline.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ARVS_WS_Published.pdf. Accessed 2019.
  39. Parsons, J.T., E.W. Schrimshaw, R.J. Wolitski, P.N. Halkitis, D.W. Purcell, C.C. Hoff, and C.A. Gómez. 2005. Sexual Harm Reduction Practices of HIV-Seropositive Gay and Bisexual Men: Serosorting, Strategic Positioning, and Withdrawal Before Ejaculation. AIDS 19: S13.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000167348.15750.9a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Race, K. 2003. Revaluation of Risk Among Gay Men. AIDS Education and Prevention 15: 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Race, K. 2012. Framing Responsibility: HIV, Biomedical Prevention, and the Performativity of the Law. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (3): 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roberts, K.J. 2002. Physician–Patient Relationships, Patient Satisfaction, and Antiretroviral Medication Adherence Among HIV-Infected Adults Attending a Public Health Clinic. AIDS Patient Care and STDs 16 (1): 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodger, A.J., V. Cambiano, T. Bruun, P. Vernazza, S. Collins, J. van Lunzen, et al. 2016. Sexual Activity Without Condoms and Risk of HIV Transmission in Serodifferent Couples When the HIV-Positive Partner Is Using Suppressive Antiretroviral Therapy. JAMA 316 (2): 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosengarten, M., J. Imrie, P. Flowers, M.D. Davis, and G. Hart. 2004. After the Euphoria: HIV Medical Technologies from the Perspective of Their Prescribers. Sociology of Health & Illness 26: 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosengarten, M., K. Race, and S. Kippax (eds.). 2000. “Touch Wood, Everything will be OK”: Gay Men’s Understandings of Clinical Markers in Sexual Practice (Monograph7/2000). Sydney: University of New South Wales, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.Google Scholar
  46. Rosengarten, M., and M. Savransky. 2018. A Careful Biomedicine? Generalization and Abstraction in RCTs. Critical Public Health 29 (2): 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Savransky, M. 2017. The Wager of an Unfinished Present: Notes on Speculative Pragmatism. In Speculative Research, the Lure of Possible Futures, ed. A. Wilkie, M. Savansky and M. Rosengarten. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Savransky, M. 2018. Open the Social: On Problematic Sociology. In Inventing the Social, ed. N. Marres, M. Guggenheim and A. Wilkie. GB: Mattering Press.Google Scholar
  49. Stengers, I. 1997. Power and Invention: Situating Science (trans: Bains, P.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stengers, I. 2000. The Invention of Modern Science (trans: Smith, D.W.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  51. Suarez, T.P., J.A. Kelly, S.D. Pinkerton, Y.L. Stevenson, M. Hayat, M.D. Smith, and T. Ertl. 2001. Influence of a Partner’s HIV Serostatus, Use of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy, and Viral Load on Perceptions of Sexual Risk Behavior in a Community Sample of Men Who Have Sex with Men. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (1999) 28 (5): 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomann, M. 2018. ‘On December 1, 2015, Sex Changes. Forever’: Pre-exposure Prophylaxis and the Pharmaceuticalisation of the Neoliberal Sexual Subject. Global Public Health 13 (8): 997–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Timmermans, S., and M. Berg. 2003. The Practice of Medical Technology. Sociology of Health & Illness 25 (3): 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van de Ven, P., G. Prestage, J. Crawford, A. Grulich, and S. Kippax. 2000. Sexual Risk Behaviour Increases and is Associated with HIV Optimism Among HIV-Negative and HIV-Positive Gay Men in Sydney Over the 4 year Period to February 2000. AIDS (London, England) 14 (18): 2951–2953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Young, I., P. Flowers, and L. McDaid. 2016. Can a Pill Prevent HIV? Negotiating the Biomedicalisation of HIV Prevention. Sociology of Health & Illness 38: 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Young, I., and L. McDaid. 2014. How Acceptable are Antiretrovirals for the Prevention of Sexually Transmitted HIV?: A Review of Research on the Acceptability of Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis and Treatment as Prevention. AIDS and Behavior 18: 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. WHO. 2014. Consolidated Guidelines on HIV Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment and Care for Key Populations. http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/keypopulations/en/. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  58. Will, C., and T. Moreira (eds.). 2010. Medical Proofs, Social Experiments: Clinical Trials in Shifting Contexts. Burlington: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, GoldsmithsUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Gender and Cultural StudiesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations